Andy Griffith is pitching for Barack

Yet another thing that drives me crazy is when I find out that we've paid for ads to run on television telling people how to take advantage of an entitlement.

One such case is now running on cable, using Andy Griffith as a pitchman for medicare. Of everything that I find distasteful in my government, this is among the worst. I do not want to pay taxes so that the government can buy commercials to tell me all of the great things I'm getting in return for paying taxes. In theory, my representatives can do that themselves.

Britain de-centralizes health care

As the US goes full bore into heatlh care socialization, England is backing away from that train wreck. From the NY Times of all places:

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
Huh. I wonder why that is?

Okay, we all know why it is. Because as soon as the government becomes involved, things get dumb expensive.

Not that Harry Reid cares about this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeking to console liberal activists who were disappointed by the final version of the national health care law, assured them that there would eventually be a public option.

Yep. We all knew that... right? We knew it was coming?
Look, the word Boondoggle will have to be redefined if this ever goes into full effect. Please, not for my sake. Not even for your sake. For your children's sake, stop this dumb thing.

To me, this whole argument about health care is like two people arguing over whether a house is properly painted. One person jumps to the conclusion that the house is horribly ruined, and sets a torch to it.
That's what's about to happen to our health care system.

Your health insurance penalty is finally labeled a tax

Its too late to call this progress. It should have been labeled a tax before the health care bill was passed. But its more honest then it was before. From the NY Times:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

What it comes down to is that the health care takeover is being challenged in court. Barack's administration can't defend taking money from the public unless they actually call it a tax.
Personally, I hope that when it goes to court, the plaintiffs will detail how the administration tried not to call it a tax, and how it was pitched to congress as something that was not a tax.

Providing health care tests for free?

You may wonder how insurance companies are going to make money. Well, I am at least. There is an ever-widening array of things that they are supposed to provide, without raising their premiums.

Here is one example from the NY Times:

The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care.

Who was the person in charge of this? HHS director Katleen Sebelius.
Welcome to the new fascism where companies have no control over what they do, or what they offer. Moreover, where they can't charge for services that they are required to provide.

Universal Health Care will never have rationing

Remember when they said that?
Obama is in the process of finding a new guy to put in charge of Medicare, and CNS found an old quote of his:

'The Decision is Not Whether or Not We Will Ration Care--The Decision is Whether We Will Ration Care With Our Eyes Open'

Who didn't see this coming?

Obama's infomercial failed to attract an audience

We all know that before the Health Care infomercial ran, Diane Sawyer told us that it wasn't going to be an infomercial. According to the MRC:

When asked whether ABC should include guests from the health care industry, Sawyer, who appeared via phone, said such voices would be featured and again swore, "And I think a lot of people haven't understand fully that this is going to be a room full of widely diverse ideas in which people who actually experience the reality of front-line health care are going to get a chance to pose their challenging questions to the President."
That's what Diane said beforehand.

This is what she did during the show. She introduced the head of Aetna, an insurance agent, and 'gave' him this opportunity to be 'heard'.

“If I could, I’m going to bring in Ron Williams from Aetna, CEO of Aetna, and if I can reverse the order a little bit Mr. President, I’d like to ask a question of him and then let you comment on his answer,” Sawyer said. “Mr. Williams, Aetna, to take one, an insurance company. We hear people all over the country people see their premiums going up 119 percent in the last several years. They see the profits of the insurance companies, the billions and billions of dollars, even in a lean year. They see profits in the billions of dollars. Is the President right – that you need to be kept honest?”

That was the chance that the insurance industry was given to speak. They were asked if its right that the president needs to keep them honest. To Diane Sawyer's credit, she didn't ask him if he still beats his wife.

Jake Tapper, who seems to be the only person at ABC who still has his balls, co-wrote this article the next day:

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky was the man who challenged the president. According to ABC, he told the president that 'elites' often create universal health care proposals safe in the knowledge that they would be above any restrictions or rationing caused by their programs and regulations. The good doctor asked:

if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

As noted before, the president, sans teleprompter, struggled to answer. But he refused to make any such pledge.

How did this go over with the public? That's hard to tell, since most did not tune into the broadcast. According to Live Feed:

The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.

I think its fitting that the president was beat out by another program about someone who gives away money.

I'm heartened that my Republicans complained about this infomercial beforehand. This, according to "The Note":

The letter to ABC News, signed by 40 members of the newly formed “Media Fairness Caucus,” accuses ABC of “providing in-kind free advertising for President Obama.”

In defense of ABC news, co-ordinating questions that the president wants to be asked seems to be normal with the Obama WH.

One last note; Insurance companies are being hit by the Democrats for a practice that is known as rescission. Its cutting the coverage of an insured person typically after they've incurred major medical expenses.
I hate insurance companies, and I'm loathe to defend them. However, in this case, its worth noting why the insurance companies cut the coverage. Its after they find out that the insured person has been less then complete in filling out their medical history when they applied.
Again, I hate defending insurance companies. But when I filled out my medical history, I tried to make sure I was up front as possible about everything.